# Sales battlecard — [competitor] / [buyer use case]

Internal working template. Fill every bracket with evidence or mark the field unknown. Do not share confidential deal notes externally. Keep the call sheet short; retain detailed evidence below it.

## Call sheet

**Card owner:** [name]
**Version / last full review:** [date]
**Applicable buyer, product and plans:** [scope]
**Use this card when:** [specific buying situation]
**Do not use it when:** [different use case / plan / geography]

### 1. Deal context
- Buyer role and job: [ ]
- Current product or process: [ ]
- Reason for evaluating now: [ ]
- Decision owner and other evaluators: [ ]
- Required outcome and how the buyer measures it: [ ]
- Must-have requirements: [ ]
- Budget, renewal and implementation constraints: [ ]

### 2. Fair competitive position
- Their credible strengths, with evidence: [ ]
- Reasons they may be the better fit: [ ]
- Our relevant strengths, with evidence: [ ]
- Conditions that justify evaluating us: [ ]
- Conditions under which we should stop pushing a replacement: [ ]

### 3. Discovery — repeat for each decision-critical requirement
- Opening question: [ ]
- Follow-up that clarifies scope: [ ]
- If answer A: [what to verify / show / do]
- If answer B: [different path]
- Stop condition: [ ]

### 4. Proven differences — include only those relevant to this buyer
| Buyer requirement | Their verified capability + limit | Our verified capability + limit | Buyer consequence | Proof / claim IDs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

For each difference:
- Approved wording: [ ]
- Qualification that must be said aloud: [ ]
- When this difference does not matter: [ ]
- If we lack proof: ask [question] instead of asserting a win.

### 5. Objections
| Buyer objection | Acknowledge | Clarify | Proof to show | Agreed next step |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| We already have that. | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| They are cheaper. | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Switching is too much work. | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| They are good enough. | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

### 6. Fair evaluation
- Buyer task and authorized test data: [ ]
- Same conditions for both vendors: [ ]
- Expected output / pass criteria agreed with buyer: [ ]
- Access, setup and dependencies: [ ]
- Test steps: [ ]
- Failure/recovery check: [ ]
- Actual result and artifact link: [unknown until tested]
- Remaining uncertainty: [ ]
- Product specialist and buyer evaluator: [names]

### 7. Commercial and switching checks
- Relevant plan and license assignment: [ ]
- Required seats and workload assumptions: [ ]
- Included features vs add-ons / usage charges: [ ]
- Billing period, minimums and contract conditions: [ ]
- Export/import availability and limits: [ ]
- Data that cannot be moved or recovered: [ ]
- Admin permissions and security/legal checks: [ ]
- Migration work, owner and dependencies: [ ]
- Renewal / implementation dates confirmed by buyer: [ ]
- Complete comparable offer on each side: [ ]

### 8. Next step
- Main question to resolve: [ ]
- Buyer owner / our owner: [ ]
- Required artifact or decision: [ ]
- Agreed date: [ ]

### 9. Do not say
| Retired or unverified wording | Reason | Replacement question or approved line | Claim ID |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

## Evidence notes — repeat per material claim

**Claim ID:** [stable identifier]
**Exact claim:** [one testable sentence]
**Scope:** [product / plan / region / release stage / buyer setup]
**Competitor source URL:** [ ]
**Exact excerpt and saved capture:** [ ]
**Our source or repeatable test:** [ ]
**Observed change date:** [if known; do not substitute capture date]
**Last verified date:** [ ]
**Verified by:** [name]
**Evidence level:** [vendor-documented / tested / buyer-reported / unverified]
**Status:** [usable / check before use / withdrawn]
**Approved wording + necessary qualification:** [ ]
**Evidence does not establish:** [ ]
**Next review date or event:** [ ]
**Affected cards, decks, snippets and active deals:** [ ]

Usable applies to the exact approved wording within scope. Vendor documentation proves what the vendor states, not successful performance in a buyer environment. Unknown claims stay out of assertions; use discovery questions instead.

## Change log
| Date | Claim ID | Old wording | Replacement | Reason | Owner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

## Release check
- [ ] A rep can find the buyer question, defensible answer, source and next step without help.
- [ ] Competitor strengths are fair; our claimed advantages have evidence too.
- [ ] Plan, region, release-stage and configuration restrictions are visible.
- [ ] Objection responses sound natural and include a decision-oriented next step.
- [ ] Open tests are labeled pending; no hypothetical results presented as real.
- [ ] Retired wording removed from active decks and snippets.
- [ ] Owner and review trigger recorded.

Guide: https://competitortracker.io/blog/battlecards-go-stale-dossiers-do-not/